JUDGMENT 1. - Both the above noted writ petitions are disposed of by this common order and for the disposal of both the writ petitions, the facts of the case of Tejumal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1069/90 are being taken into consideration. 2. Indian Oil Corporation had invited applications as per advertisement published in Dainik Navjyoti dated 10.1.1987 for allotment of High Speed Diesel (HSD) retail outlet at Kekri-Nasirabad High Way in village Sarwar. The petitioner Tejumal already having experience in the line had applied for the said dealership. The petitioner had also supplied information to the respondent in regard to his finance and finance required for installation of petrol pump for running the dealership as narrated in para 4 of the petition. He had also submitted certain affidavits of Girdhari Lal and Vadhumal for their willingness to extend the advances to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that before the allotment and to secure certain financial help he had entered into a partner-ship deed on 26.4.1989 vide Annexure 5 with one Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari. However, after coming to know about the character of said Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, the petitioner had withdrawn from the partnership on 22.4.1989 as per document attached as Annexures 6-A and 6-B. The petitioner was approved as a best candidate for dealer-ship and he was directed to proceed with the arrangement of acquisition of land covered by Khasra No. 1984/2 for installation of the Petrol Pump vide communication dated 3.9.1989 by the Assistant Manager, Devi Singh posted at Ajmer. Upto 22.5.1989, the petitioner did not hear any further communication from the Indian Oil Corporation when vide Annexure 7 he was informed to be available on 23/24th of may at home. He was interviewed by two officers Devi Singh and Bharat Singh both Assistant Managers of 1 he respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner had told the officers that he had already acquired the land of 4 Bighas and 12 Biswas abutting, State High-way near Sarwar covered by Khasra No. 1984/2 (Sewai Chak). He was interviewed by two officers Devi Singh and Bharat Singh both Assistant Managers of 1 he respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner had told the officers that he had already acquired the land of 4 Bighas and 12 Biswas abutting, State High-way near Sarwar covered by Khasra No. 1984/2 (Sewai Chak). He had also applied under Section 90(a) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1950 read with Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinema, Hotel or for Establishment of Petrol Pump) Rules, 1978 and a report was made that the land purchased by the petitioner was free from all disabilities, and can he allotted for the purpose of Petrol Pump. The Municipal Board, Sarwar had also issued 'No Objection' in case of the land covered by Khasra No. 1984/2 in question as per Annexure 10. A certificate of being bonafide resident was also produced by the petitioner. In addition to above, the petitioner had produced the documentary evidence in respect of his finance as narrated in para 7.7 to 7.11. 3. After satisfying themselves the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation reported in favour of the petitioner Tejumal and he was granted a letter of intent dated 22.6.1989 (Annex. 16) on certain conditions. It was mentioned in the letter of intent that the petitioner was supposed to make arrangements for the land and from amongst other things, the petitioner should make arrangement for ill finances and other arrangements for opening the Retail Outlet Dealership within four months from the date of issue of letter. The petitioner requested the officers to visit the site for its approval. For the reason that the construction was to he made at the expenses of the petitioner, but with the approval of the Indian Oil Corporation Officers, the petitioner offered his entire sum needed for construction of the complex. The petitioner had made all preparations for the construction of Petrol Pump and had been communicating with the officers as is clear from Annexurc-17 to the writ petition. But all of a sudden on 11 9.1989 he was informed to stop further progress in acquiring the land and other facilities, for the establishment of Petrol Pump. The petitioner represented against such an action of the Indian Oil Corporation. He made representation, but no reply was received. But all of a sudden on 11 9.1989 he was informed to stop further progress in acquiring the land and other facilities, for the establishment of Petrol Pump. The petitioner represented against such an action of the Indian Oil Corporation. He made representation, but no reply was received. It was stated by the petitioner that he had not committed any breach of any term except that he had entered into a partner-ship deed before the issuance of L.O.I. Annexure 16 with one Pradeep Kumar Tiwari which was immediately terminated. He had also submitted that the entering into a partner-ship was even otherwise not a dis-qualification for allotment of Petrol Pump. Vide Annexure 23 the petitioner was informed that there are certain compliance against him in regard to partnership entered into by him with Pradeep Kumar Tiwari and he was asked to be present on 6.12.1989 for necessary discussion withal) the necessary documents. It is stated by the petitioner that as is clear from Annexure-24 even the partner-ship had since been terminated before issuance of letter Annexure-23 and Pradeep Kumar had even issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 10.7.1989. 4. One Satya Narain Bohra who was also one of the competitor filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3699/89 in this court which is connected writ petition challenging the allotment of the pump to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had formed a partner-ship (writ petition of Satya Narain Bohra shall be discussed here-in-after). 5. Shri Satya Narain Bohra had obtained status quo order in regard to further proceedings of allotment of the Petrol Pump on 12.9.1989. After allotment of the Petrol Pump to the petitioner, Satya Narain and one Nand Kishore started efforts to get the allotment of Petrol Pump cancelled from the name of the petitioner. The petitioner received a letter of cancellation of letter of intent vide Annexure 27-A on 18.1.1990 on the ground that vide clause 1.2 of the letter of intent it was intended that the petitioner shall not induct partner in case of individuals, nor make any changes in the Constitution of partnership as existing at the time of application and on inquiry it had been found that the petitioner had entered into a partnership with Pradeep Kumar Tiwari on 26.4.1989 and for the contravention of the term, the dealer-ship of the petitioner is cancelled. The order Annexure 27-A dated 18.1.1990 is reproduced as under: "Indian Oil Corporation Limited R/SRG/Sarwar 18.1.1990 Regd. A.D. Sh. Tejumal S/o Sh. Jetha Nand Nath Mohalla P.O. & Village Sarwar Tehsil Sarwar Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) Sub:- Proposed RO dealership at Sarwar Distt. Ajmer. (Raj.) Under others Category against Mktg. Plan 1986-87. Dear Sir, Reference may please be made to the letter of Intent bearing No. RSK : Sarwar dated 22.6.89 vide which the subject Retain Outlet dealership at Sarwar, Distt. Ajmer was offered to you subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. Vide clause 1.2 of the letter of Intent it was mentioned that "You shall not induct any partner(s), in case of individuals, nor make any changes in the Constitution of partnership as existing at the time of application." On enquiry it has come to our knowledge that you entered into the partnership with Sh. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari vide partnership deed dated 26.4.89 and as such you have contravened the above noted clause. Since you have deliberately contravened, the above noted clause, I hereby, withdraw/revoke/cancel the letter of intent, dated 22.6.89 issued to you with immediate effect. Yours faithfully, for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Sd/- (K.S. Nair) Dy. General Manager (s) Regd. Office G-9 Aliyavar Jang Marg Banira (East) Bombay 400051. 6. In consequence of order Annexure 27-A the letter of intent Annexure-16 was cancelled. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that already status quo had been granted in the case of Satya Narain, Civil Writ Petition No. 3699/89 on 12.9.1989 and, therefore, no action could have been taken by the Indian Oil Corporation in this regard. it is although submitted that not only the order Annexure 27-A is in gross violation of the order passed on 12.9.1989, but the petitioner was not associated with any inquiry and despite the fact that the petitioner had time and again informed the respondents by various letters, registered letters and telegrams that there was no partnership deed in between him and Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, the petitioner had been un-necessarily harased by way of illegal .action taken against him by cancellation of his dealership. It is further submitted by the petitioner that even though there was no partner-ship deed in existence, but still there was no such condition in letter of Intent as to authorise the respondents to cancel the dealership on the ground of any alleged partner-ship. It is further submitted by the petitioner that even though there was no partner-ship deed in existence, but still there was no such condition in letter of Intent as to authorise the respondents to cancel the dealership on the ground of any alleged partner-ship. It is further submitted that the petitioner had spent lacs of rupees and once he had been selected by the selection Board on merits and letter of intent had been issued, the petitioner had purchased the land, made preparations for construction of Petrol Pump and had also started construction for Petrol Pump. On any alleged imaginative breach of term, the licence could not have been cancelled. A prayer has been made by the petitioner Tejumal to call for the record and restrain the respondents front issuing any letter of intent in favour of any person other than the petitioner and for quashing Annexure 27-A. The status quo order was granted on 3 [.3.1990 by this court in the present writ petition.Facts of the Case of Satya Narain Bohra: 8. The facts in regard to issurance of the advertisement and selection have already been incorporated in the above writ petition of Tejumal. The grievance of the petitioner is that Tejumal had been allotted the letter of intent for dealership and under Clause 8 of the advertisement it has been clearly mentioned that if any documentary evidence produced by any of the candidate is found to be incorrect his/her application is likely to be rejected. It is stated by the petitioner Satya Narain that Tejumal was not entitled for allotment for the reason that he had entered into a partnership with Pradeep Kumar Tiwari and because of the reason that he had made the complaints against the petitioner Tejumal, he could not have been allotted the retail shop. It is stated by the petitioner Satya Narain that the Selection Board was biased and, therefore, instead of selecting him, Tejumal had been selected. He had prayed for cancellation of the dealership made in favour of Tejumal. On filing the writ petition, an order of status quo was passed in regard to further proceedings on 229.1989. 9. Identical reply in both the cases has been filed on behalf of the Corporation, through non-petitioner No. 2, i.e. Oil Selection Board, it is admitted that as per the response to the advertisement, the Oil Corporation prepares a fist of all eligible candidates. 9. Identical reply in both the cases has been filed on behalf of the Corporation, through non-petitioner No. 2, i.e. Oil Selection Board, it is admitted that as per the response to the advertisement, the Oil Corporation prepares a fist of all eligible candidates. It is also admitted that after holding the interviews and comparing the merits, a panel of candidates is prepared for grant of license to the suitable candidates for awarding the dealership. The panel is sent to the Area Manager of the Corporation with a request to carry out the field investigation and verify the details mentioned in the application form. It is admitted that after making inquiries. if a candidate whose name finds place at Sr. No. 1 in the merit fist is issued it letter of intent (L.O.I.). It has been stated that because of the reason that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of partnership with one Pradeep Kumar Tiwari before the issurance of the letter of intent, the Corporation had thought it tit to cancel the L.O.I. However, it is submitted that even the partnership firm can he granted the dealership provided it is applied in the name of the partnership. It is stated that if any individual has applied for grant of dealership, he is not entitled to enter into it partnership, either prior or subsequent to grant of L.O.I. It is stated that the guidelines issued by the Ministry at page 9 and 10 of the Manual on policy guidelines relating to partnership clearly mentioned that all partners should fulfill eligibility and each partner should submit separate application form for consideration. It is stated that on 6.12.19ny the petitioner was informed of the. complaint against him that he had entered into a partnership even before the L.O.I. was sanctioned in his favour. 10. Indian Oil Corporation respondent No. I had also filed a written statement and it is stated in para 6-E of the written statement that on the report of Devi Singh, Assistant Manager, it was suggested that the petitioner being the best candidate should proceed further with the preparation of necessary preparations for installation of Petrol Pump and letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner Tejumal. It is stated that because of the reason that the petitioner had entered into certain partnership with one Pradeep Kumar Tiwari in April 1989 even before issuance of L.O.I. he was not entitled for allotment of any Petrol Pump. The only ground taken by the respondent No. I and 2 is that because of the so-called partnership the letter of intent had been cancelled. 11. The respondent No. 6 Nand Kishore Soni had also filed the written statement. He has also reiterated the grounds taken in the reply by the Indian Oil Corporation respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He has stated that the respondent No. () had been granted a letter of intent on 7.2.1990 because of being on merit next to Tejurnal and that order is justified. He stated that he had already completed certain formalities after grant of letter of intent. 12. After going through the pleadings and after hearing the arguments of the both the learned counsel for the parties, the only question which arises for determination is whether the cancellation of letter of intent in favour of Tejumal petitioner is legal and justified or whether he had violated any of the conditions. Copy of the letter of intent has been placed on record as Armexure 16 which says that it has been decided to offer the retail outlet dealership to Tejumal petitioner at Sarwar. Clause (a) deals with Land, Clause (c) deals with Finance. Clause (d) deals with Commissioning, stating that the dealer-ship is to he commissioned within stipulated period of 8 months. Clause (1) says that the dealer is not to induct any of the partner in case of individual nor can make any changes in the constitution of the partnership as existing at the time of application. Clause (2) sub-clause (c) and (d) states that the dealers to obtain retail selling licence and other permits/permissions that may he necessary for commissioning and subsequent sale of petroleum products and that dealer shall operate it personally full time and give a written undertaking to this effect. The dealership can he cancelled if the dealer receives any other letter of intent of dealership from the company. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: 1. The dealership can he cancelled if the dealer receives any other letter of intent of dealership from the company. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: 1. It is intended to offer you the Retain outlet Dealership at Sarwar, District Ajmer (Raj.) on the condition that you wi114 (a) Land: Porocure a suitable plot of land within a period of four months from the date of this letter, duly cleared by our Jaipur Divisional Office in writing. The plot of land ad-measuring 36.50 X 30.48 Mtrs. should be either purchased by you or leased to you initially for a period of 15 years with suitable sublease clause as detailed in (3) hereunder and also with a renewal option thereafter for a minimum period of 5 years. (b).......... (c) ......... (d) Commissioning: Make all out efforts to commission the Retail Outlet within 8 months from the date of this letter. In other words, it should be your endeavour not only to arrange for land and finance within the stipulated period as mentioned above, but also to complete various formalities in such a way that the retail outlet dealership is commissioned within a stipulated period of 8 month from the date of this letter. 1.1. If we find that the progress made by you towards the above within the stipulated period is not to out satisfaction, this offer is liable to be withdrawn. 1.2. You shall not induct any partner(s) in case of individual, nor make any changes in the constitution of the partnership as existing, at the time of application. 2........ (a) .......... (b) .......... (c) To obtain retail selling licence and other permits/permissions that may be necessary for commissioning and subsequent sale of petroleum products from you outlets. (d) Operate the dealership personally full time and give us a written undertaking to this effect. 13. Certain instructions had also been placed on record at the time of hearing in regard to eligibility criteria of the applicants i.e. that he should be Indian National citizen, should be within the age of 21-50 years, qualification should he Matriculate, he should he resident of the area of District, should not have income of more than 50,000/- and in case of partnership each candidate must fulfil the eligibility criteria etc. It is also mentioned in Clause 8 that in case the documentary evidence produced by the candidate at any stage is found to he incorrect the application is liable to be rejected. So are the conditions mentioned in the Manual of Selection of Dealers and Distributors, copy of which has been shown to the Court which provides the criteria for selection. In Clause 2.7.14, there is a mention of partnership which reads as under: "2.7.14 Partnerships: In the case of partnerships, all partners should individually fulfil the above mentioned eligibility conditions and each partner should submit separate application forms. However, the quantum of application money will be the same as applicable to individual candidate. However, all of them must appear for the interview." 14. Because of the reason that the L.O.I. has been cancelled on the ground of the alleged partnership, no other conditions are necessary to be incorporated nor any other such condition is applicable in the present case. 15. Now coming to the facts of the present cases, wherein dates are material to be mentioned, i.e. advertisement 10.1.1987, date of application made by Tejumal 6.2.1987 (Annexure 2), alleged partnership 26.4.1989 (Annexure 5), cancellation of the alleged partnership 29.4.1989, letter of intent 22.6.1989, arrangement about land etc. June to December 1989, impugned order of cancellation of the letter of intent Annexure 27-A 28.1.1990. 16. In view of the above said dates it is very clear; (i) when the petitioner had applied for dealership, he had applied in individual capacity and he was so allotted the dealership in the individual capacity. (ii) he is said to have entered into some partnership in April, 1989, but immediately cancelled the same; (iii) there is no clause in the letter of intent that a dealer cannot enter into a partnership, after the letter of intent has been entered into or granted. (iv) no record has been produced to show that there were any guidelines or instructions for cancellation of the letter of intent if at a later stage, it is found that any partnership had been entered into subsequent to making of application or letter of intent; (v) in view of letter of intent the petitioner Tejumal had made certain preparations which can be said promissory estoppel against the Corporation. The only clause about the partnership which is being invoked against the petitioner is that in case he was to apply as a partner of the partnership then he had to apply as a partnership concerned, which is not the factual position in the present case nor it is so applicable as at the time of application, he did apply in the individual capacity and, therefore, the clause 2.7.14 is not applicable in the present case. The letter of intent no where prohibits entering into a partnership, but in the present case there is a categorical statement of petitioner Tejumal that he had immediately cancelled the partnership with Pradeep Kumar Tiwari which matter required elaborate inquiry. The only clause 1.2 as mentioned in letter of intent Annexure-16 is that the dealer is not to induct any partner in case of individual but in the present case no partner had been inducted after issuance of the letter of intent; (vi) if at all there is any partnership that was in April 1989 where as the L.O.I. had been granted in the month of June. 1989: (vii) clause 1.2 of Annex. 16 clearly says that he is not to induct any partnership and that clause shall apply only when the letter of intent is issued or subsequent to that i.e. 26.6.1989. There is no evidence on record to show that any partnership had been inducted after 26.6.1989. 17. Over and above, only because of the complaints, allegations of which have been totally denied by the petitioner Tejumal, and without giving any opportunity, the authorities had acted hastely in cancelling the L.U.I. and allotted the same to respondent No. 6 in the writ petition of Tejuinai. 18. The action of the respondents is also open to question when admittedly in the writ petition of Satya Narain, status quo was ordered in regard to any further proceedings. That definitely means that in regard to the present dealership, no action should have been taken by the respondent after the status quo order passed on 12.9.1989 and, therefore, no proceedings should have been continued in regard to the present outlet. Despite the status quo in both the writ petitions the concerned officials were persuaded with the cancellation of the outlet than to abide by law. 19. Despite the status quo in both the writ petitions the concerned officials were persuaded with the cancellation of the outlet than to abide by law. 19. The learned counsel has relied on the unreported judgment in Budhi Prakash v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 852/97 decided on 16.7.1997 bur the facts in these cases are distinguishable. There the letter of intent was issued in favour of one Budhmal Mali and on his death, his son Budhi Prakash had claimed the letter of intent. The court held that his son has no privity of contract with the oil Corporation. In another D.B. Special Appeal No. 738/94, Azad Kumar lasod v. Union of India decided on 11.10.1996 , it was a case where certain applicant was not called for interview. It was held that the selection of a dealer in petroleum product by the Indian Oil Corporation would be only a discretionary matter and non-calling for interview is not force able right. It was held that there was no violation of any Act, Rules or Regulation. The facts of Azad Kumar's case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case after issuance of the L.O.I. a vested right had been conferred on the petitioner Tejumal. In another case in Civil Writ Petition No. 406/89, decided on 17.1.1990 Railwaymen's Consumers Cooperative Association Ltd. v. The Union of India and others . S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 406/89, it was held that a detailed inquiry was made into the rival contentions of the parties and the question arose to he determined before the court was whether the letter written by Shri J.P. Misra on 16.5.1989 was a genuine or forged one or manipulated one. The Court held that it was a disputed question of fact in regard to forgery or genuineness of a letter and, therefore, no writ was maintainable. 20. Tejumal petitioner had also moved a contempt petition even though the court had held that contempt petition should not proceed any further but it was observed that before proceeding further in regard to Petrol Pump the authorities should have sought clarification from this court by observing as under: "Before parting with the case, I will like to observe that it would have been better. If the authorities before proceeding further with the enquiry had sought clarification from this court as to whether they should proceed with the enquiry or not so that all this litigation would have been avoided and it is expected that in future, as and when such an occasion arises, the authorities will seek clarification from the court before proceeding further in any manner, whatsoever if they have any doubt as to the meaning and effect of the status quo order." 21. For the reasons and discussions mentioned above, there is no escape but to allow the writ petition No. 1069/90 of Tejumal quo the order Annex. 27-A cancelling the L.U.I. with a direction to the Corporation to continue with the allotment of L.O.I. in favour of Tejumal and consequently, the writ petition of Satya Narain Bohra is dismissed. Satya Narain was not selected nor he was on merit list. He had no locus standi to file the writ petition. The allotment made in favour of respondent No. 6 Nand Kishore Soni shall stand cancelled and it will stand allotted to Tejumal writ petitioner. For the reasons mentioned above. Annexure 27-A dated 18.1.1990 cancelling the dealership of Tejumal is held to be bad and illegal and, therefore, is quashed. The writ petition of Tejumal is allowed. 22. The Corporation shall pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to Tejumal petitioner. *******